It’s like reading something out of Solzhenitsyn: A courtroom that is
nothing more than a stage for a grotesque parody of justice, some sort of theater meant
to satisfy God only knows what audience; an intelligent, articulate man reduced
to a mere shadow of himself by months of torture and possiblypharmacological abuse; a magistrate who
is no more than a hand puppet for a powerful state, possessed neither of human
feeling nor any appreciation for the the most rudimentary principles of justice.
Historian and former British
ambassador Craig Murray had this to say on the extradition
hearing for Julian Assange, held in London last week:
“To
see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known,
reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents
of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not
just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him
that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could
explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the
very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and
competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following
court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.”
A MOCKERY
OF JUSTICE
The degree to which this proceeding
constituted a complete mockery of the justice system is difficult to believe:
First, Assange’s defense
argued that the US government’s charges against him under the Espionage Act
were political in nature and therefore excluded from the UK’s extradition
treaty with that country. This is not a trivial matter. The treaty in question explicitly
states that extradition requests will not be given for “political offenses.”
“Pure” political offenses include espionage, and Assange has been
charged under the US Espionage Act of 1917.
Assange’s legal defense
requested a preliminary hearing to determine whether, given these facts, he
could even be extradited under the treaty. According to Murray, “Baraitser
dismissed the defence’s request for a separate prior hearing to consider
whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without
bothering to give any reason why.” (Emphasis mine.)
Second, Assange’s defense
team requested a postponement of the full
extradition hearing set for February 24th, 2020, on two separate grounds:
One, that he had been kept in
isolation at Belmarsh Prison, with no access to any of the materials necessary
to prepare his defense; And two, that evidence in a Spanish court case had
shown that the CIA had been spying on Assange while he was living in the
Ecuadorian embassy, including spying on privileged conversations he had with
his lawyers. This fact alone, if verified, could be enough to invalidate any US charges
against him, and his defense argued that the full hearing be extended so that
information from the Spanish case (which has not yet concluded) could be
included. Baraitser again denied the request, and then called a ten-minute
recess to discuss altering dates for the submission of evidence.
“What
happened next was instructive,” writes Murray. “There were five representatives
of the US government present… seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The
prosecution lawyers immediately went into a huddle with the US representatives,
then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the
dates.”
After the
recess, Murray observed as a junior counsel for the prosecution “scurried to
the back of the court to consult the Americans again”, and that the prosecuting
attorney, James Lewis, QC, “actually told the judge he was ‘taking instructions
from those behind'”, referring to the US government representatives.
“At
this stage,” he writes, “it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce.
The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying
those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The
charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the
bench to control the whole process. Nobody could sit there and believe they
were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a
moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defence. Her facial expressions
on the few occasions she looked at the defence ranged from contempt through
boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was attentive, open and warm.”
DISCARDING LEGITIMACY
In
their treatment of Assange, and in their theatrical disregard for the law, both
the British and American governments have ripped off their masks of civility
and revealed their true nature: That of violent, criminal gangs that are
restrained by no law and no morality. Any pretense that these entities act as
“servants of the people” has been tossed aside. Everyone can now see them for
what they are.
For some
of us, this comes as no surprise. We have long been aware of the state’s
violent and unaccountable nature. For us, this is simply one grotesque
confirmation of what we have been trying to tell others for years. But now,
even for those who are not opposed to the very institution of the state, those
who believe in the legitimacy of “representative government”, it is becoming
very difficult to pretend that what we see unfolding before us is in any way
lawful or legitimate.
So
now what? What do you do when you recognize that the government that rules over
you is illegitimate by your own standards? That it casually and openly breaks
its own laws when it suits it to do so, and that it cannot be held accountable
for its genuinely criminal acts?
Julian
Assange has famously said that “capable, generous men do not create victims.
They nurture victims.” I say that capable, generous men do not stand by while
aggressive, powerful states trample the rights of those who live under them, wage
war against those who live under less powerful states, and systematically
destroy those who are courageous enough to expose their crimes to the world.
There is a palpable
frustration among those who care about Assange, who care about freedom of
speech and who care about holding governments accountable, with what appears to
be the futility of demonstrating and signing petitions on his behalf. As with
so many other issues, it is becoming painfully clear
to a great many people that marching in the streets, holding up signs, and
appealing to the better natures of politicians does absolutely nothing to
prevent the state from trampling our rights.
WHAT NOW?
It is time for something else. Not violent revolution, because that can
only bring more of what we are suffering from now: A political system founded
in coercive violence. What is needed now are tangible ways of holding state
actors accountable for their actions, including peaceful, civil disobedience
that results in their not being able to perform those actions. What is needed
now is for capable, generous men (and women) to start getting creative.
That’s not going to be easy. It is clear that the state–it doesn’t even
matter which one–is using its tormenting of Julian Assange to send a message to
the rest of us:
“Don’t
you dare challenge our complete authority to do whatever we want, wherever we
want, and to whomever we want. Do not dream of holding us accountable in any
real way for our crimes in the way that we hold all of you accountable for the
most minor of transgressions. Just keep on voting and arguing about which of us
is best suited to lead the War Machine. But don’t you dare question the War
Machine itself.
“…or
this is what we will do to you.”
What is most chilling about this whole
episode is that the perpetrators of this farce do not even seem to care that
the world now sees them for what they are. Those running the extradition
hearing made no attempt to conceal that they were performing nothing more than
a charade–a charade directed by a foreign government no less. The magistrate
made no attempt to conceal her contempt for Assange, and for the rule of law
itself, smirking throughout the proceedings. They do not care that we see their
true nature, and they do not seem to be the least bit afraid of making Assange
into a martyr.
But they should be. Because capable,
generous men do not respond well to threats. Capable, generous men do
everything they can to prevent criminals from ruling over society. They take
over courtrooms that make a mockery of justice, and peaceably prevent them from
operating; they surround the vehicles carrying innocent men to show trials and
prevent them from moving; they find ways to hold accountable the individuals
who commit crimes on behalf of the state; they tear down the walls of prisons
once they realize they do not serve justice. And capable, generous men do not
allow vicious, rogue states to get away with locking away and torturing men
like Julian Assange. What the world needs now is not “leaders” – certainly not
political ones. What the world needs now, more than anything, is capable,
generous men.
Bretigne
Shaffer [send
her mail] was a journalist in Asia for many years. She is the author
of Urban Yogini (A Superhero Who Can’t Use Violence) and Why Mommy Loves the State. She blogs at www.bretigne.com.